juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards, Marsh!
Thank you for your post!
In other words, I can see the elevation of Jesus to "God" as a manufactured invention for the purpose of political control. Which is directly in line with historic fact of church history.
Thank you for your post!
Actually, following normal men is a normal/regular/natural thing for people to do. Yes, I presented some extreme examples for the purpose of demonstration. But what of those who followed Eisenhower to the death. Thank God for them! While you may disagree with Koresh and Swaggart (as do I), religious leaders who are sincere are necessary to the mental and spiritual health of so many people. Would you say Gandhi led his followers to disappointment? What of the (Quaker?) fathers who led the pilgrims to the shores of North America? The Native population no doubt regrets that, but the followers and their families after are quite grateful. For every "bad" example that can be given, and certainly history is full of them, there are at least as many or more examples of leaders leading their people to a better place, at least relatively speaking.Marsh said:
This is part of being human.
This is a toughie to answer. I realize many great things, even miracles, have been done in the name of Jesus. Likewise, in the name of Jesus, many great tragedies have come about. Because another man claims he comes to me in the name of Jesus, does not mean he really does. I am sad to say that I have seen many frauds committed in my lifetime by those brandishing Jesus like a weapon. These same people do not live the life Jesus taught. So while I agree, technically, that Jesus cannot cause anybody grief at this time, there is a whole lot of grief dealt out on a daily basis by those acting "in the name of" Jesus.
But see, this is extrapolating from the other books and applying it to James. The other books provide the assumption (the Pauline epistles especially), which by the time the reader gets to James s/he makes the assumption that is what the words at the beginning of the book of James means. That the other apostles actually knew Jesus, and followed him from direct knowledge of his teachings, I have no doubt. This cannot be said of Paul.
Yes, of course. Paul however, did not personally know Jesus, but rather had a metaphysical meeting with him (supposedly). Likewise, no one living today, or over the last 1970 years +/-, has had a direct personal relationship with Jesus. I realize there are a great many who teach one must have a personal relationship with Jesus, but that relationship (provided it is indeed genuine!) can only be metaphysical. I have to say, one can get a metaphysical relationship with the divine in every major world faith I can think of. (Allowing that Buddhists have a somewhat different slant on the matter).
This is because my examples were in direct response to the statement "A real Christian is someone willing to follow Jesus to the end." What is "follow to the end," if not being willing to die for what one believes in? One can believe that personal freedom is worth dying for, and fight in a war to preserve and promote that ideal. Likewise, how many Crusaders and others in wars over the last 2 thousand years have marched off to battle thinking they were doing service to and for Jesus? Interesting is when both sides think the same God is on their particular side!
Not necesasrily. Neil Armstrong followed Robert Goddard to the moon. (This is somewhat allegorical, there were far many more people involved than just these two). How many scientists put their faith in Charles Darwin, or Albert Einstein, or Louis Pasteur, or Nikolai Tesla?
Certainly. I just think we have differing ideas of what "placing your faith in" means. You see Jesus as a manifestation, in form and function, of God in flesh. I realize this is traditional teaching in Christianity. I have questions in my mind and heart as to whether or not this is valid in the sense it is commonly taught. Just as I question the validity of teaching that God is in all (which at a certain level I can agree with), and that piece of God can be elevated somehow, in an effort to make that person on a level with God (which I disagree with resolutely!). In other words, if God was in Jesus, then God is in all (yes). But thinking that piece or element of God can be exercised to the point of elevating an individual to Godhead (or somewhere mighty close) is not something I see as realistic or truth, not to mention the ramifications to spirit and divinity if such were indeed possible.
In other words, I can see the elevation of Jesus to "God" as a manufactured invention for the purpose of political control. Which is directly in line with historic fact of church history.
"How is it that James can put his faith in both God and Jesus if the two are not one?" God the Father Creator, and Jesus the Rabbi who shows the right path to walk on. Which is how truth is revealed in virtually every other faith. As for "Thus in James' mind, as in the minds of the other apostles, as even in Jesus' mind, God the Father and Jesus Christ are one," again this is extrapolating from the others (specifically Paul, who had no personal association wtih Jesus) and laying it on James' words. As for Jesus' mind, he wrote nothing that has come to us through canon. What we have is others writing for him, and speaking for him. And considering (once again, church history) who consolidated and established canon and dogma, it is not unrealistic to believe the church may have altered the manuscripts, especially to make them more in accord with Roman traditions and folkways of the time. There are no extent copies of New Testament manuscripts that predate the official political authorization of the church. In other words, while some New Testatment books are presumed to have been written circa 50 AD +/-, there are none that survive complete prior to about 400 AD. There is 350 years where the words could be manipulated, and given the historic and cultural norm of Rome at the time, it is even to be expected that the manuscripts probably were altered.
Indeed. If I live my life in accord with Jesus teachings, I too can be "one" with God.
I absolutely agree. Which is where prayerful consideration comes into play. I am thinking this is in line with what some call "meditation." Either way, it is connection to and with spirit for the purpose of direction and guidance.
